5 ms·

Already 61% of the US have gotten their first jab, and it is only natural that the pace will slow down a bit. Distribution is always a bit of a long-tail. Espe

by fouc 6y ago

Already 61% of the US have gotten their first jab, and it is only natural that the pace will slow down a bit. Distribution is always a bit of a long-tail. Especially when the last 13% are going to be the least interested. edit: misread article re: 200 million doses

ed25519FUUU 6y ago
After my second jab I honestly don’t care. Time to get on with life. We have someone in our family that can’t be vaccinated for medical reasons and they feel the same way. The risk goes down significantly when the whole family is vaccinated. It’s time to put covid in the “managed risk” section of our life and get on with things.
- jghn 6y ago
  Yep. I'll feel bad for the people who can't get a jab due to lack of herd immunity and I'll worry about the anti-vaxxers leading to escape. But even with that I know I won't be able to help but have a "screw 'em" stance pretty quick with the people who are choosing to not get vaccinated.
- barbazoo 6y ago
  Given that it seems that you can be transmitting the virus without developing symptoms, would it really be that much safer for an unvaccinated person?
  - jghn 6y ago
    Depends on your vaccine. NEJM had a RWE study on Pfizer from Israel's data [1] that showed the 2nd shot had 92% efficacy against asymptomatic infection. Symptomatic infection was 94%. [1]: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765
    - barbazoo 6y ago
      That's fantastic, thank you.
- idiotsecant 6y ago
  You should care because your vaccine doesn't necessarily prevent you from catching a mutated variant . Given a long enough timeline and enough hosts such a strain will evolve, it's only a matter of time.
  - mikem170 6y ago
    Is there any science supporting your statement?
    - idiotsecant 6y ago
      You want a source for what? That viruses are subject to evolutionary pressures and will mutate to better adapt to their environments like literally everything else as advantageous random mutations are found?
      - mikem170 6y ago
        You seem to be overstating the likelihood of covid-19 mutating into another strain, like the flu does. It's a coronavirus and those are known to be different in this regard. I haven't seen a source saying that we should expect immunity-evading strains. Do you have anything decent?
        idiotsecant 6y ago
        They literally already exist!
        mikem170 6y ago
        >You should care because your vaccine doesn't necessarily prevent you from catching a mutated variant . Given a long enough timeline and enough hosts such a strain will evolve, it's only a matter of time. Yes, I know there are variants. But I've seen no science saying that it is likely or expected that the vaccine won't work against covid-19 variants. Have you? > They literally already exist! Ok, I googled and found this: "Variant or strain? Experts explain what's happened to the coronavirus" [0] From the article: "However, Soucy noted that all currently known variants of COVID-19 belong to the SARS-CoV-2 strain and have not mutated enough to either be classified as their own strain or be ineffective against current and prospective COVID-19 vaccines." Another quote from the article: "Infectious disease expert Dr. Lisa Barrett told CTV News Channel on Sunday that viruses often mutate, but some viruses do it more than others. She noted that while the genetic code of coronaviruses does typically change over time, she says the mutations aren’t normally a cause for concern." Here's another article, with references to multiple studies: "We now have the best evidence yet that everyone develops long-term coronavirus immunity after infection — and it's not just about antibodies" [1] From that article: "Many people who've never gotten COVID-19 seem to have memory T cells that can recognize the new coronavirus." ... "In this case, experts think these cross-reactive T cells likely come from previous exposure to other coronaviruses — those that cause common colds." That's the kind of stuff I find when I dig into this. What are you seeing? [0] https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/variant-or-strain-experts-explain-what-s-happened-to-the-coronavirus-1.5245923 https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/variant-or-strain-... [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/long-term-coronavirus-immunity-t-cells-2020-8?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/long-term-coronavirus-immuni...
brink 6y ago
Isn't herd immunity at 70%? This, along with those that have natural resistance to it should get us there, right?
- barbazoo 6y ago
  Does the distribution matter here? I wonder if there'll be pockets of unvaccinated people in areas of higher vaccination hesitancy and what that means for herd immunity.
  - ajross 6y ago
    There always will be, but the nature of "herd" immunity means that such outbreaks will not be able to jump to the broader population, because on average outbreaks in a herd-immune community shrink and don't grow.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  It’s not clear. US health officials say it’s higher (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/heal...), although Fauci’s credibility in this interview is kinda compromised by the statement that he wasn’t previously telling people what he really thought.
- superkuh 6y ago
  That was estimated for the original Wuhan sequence and the early single mutation D614G variant. Current variants with the 501.Y change have almost twice the virulence (they infect people more easily). And the 501Y.V2 and V3 have the E484K mutation (sequenced first in South Africa and Brazil) that makes them escape immune responses to the original Wuman and D614G variants. This also applies to a lesser degree to L452R sequenced first in California, USA but it does not share the increased virulence of the 501Y variants of concern. Herd immunity might have been 70% in March 2020 but much more than that is required now. This is especially true as various ignorant populations have decided that no particular protectective behaviors are needed raising the R number even higher.
ajross 6y ago
Not yet, per this link we're at 39%. Maybe you're looking at data for total doses given? Lots of the vaccination in the US has been (IMHO, inappropriately) focused on completing the course, so while we might have had enough doses to put one in 60% of the population, we actually put two in most of those people. The UK did the opposite, where slightly more total vaccine led to only 13% of people being completely vaccinated but 49% having at least one dose. And clearly their outbreak curve looks much better. Though it's worth pointing out that the UK curve seems to be levelling off at an asymptote of about 50% vaccination, which is too low and broadly confirms the contention in the linked article. Get your shots, folks. https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countries-normalized&highlight=United%20States&show=highlight-only&y=both&scale=linear&data=vaccinePeople&data-source=owid&xaxis=right#countries-normalized https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countr...
- naturalauction 6y ago
  The UK “leveling off” is likely a result of vaccine availability, especially as the number of second doses are ramping up (they have decided to use a longer gap between the first and second dose). I believe 95% of over 50s are vaccinated and the program just opened up eligibility for non at-risk people aged 45-50 a few days ago. Now with potential fear around blood clots, future uptake is yet to be seen, I think it’s too early to say that vaccinations are leveling off.
vjeux 6y ago
38.5% has at least one shot (as the title of the article says), not 61%. 61% is the result of a survey.
- fouc 6y ago
  edit: misread article
  - ac29 6y ago
    You arent reading the article. From the first paragraph: "Over 127 million adults—38.5 percent of the US population—have received at least one shot. Over 80 million adults—24 percent of the US population—are now fully vaccinated."

by fouc 6y ago

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

After my second jab I honestly don’t care. Time to get on with life. We have someone in our family that can’t be vaccinated for medical reasons and they feel the same way. The risk goes down significantly when the whole family is vaccinated. It’s time to put covid in the “managed risk” section of our life and get on with things.

jghn 6y ago
Yep. I'll feel bad for the people who can't get a jab due to lack of herd immunity and I'll worry about the anti-vaxxers leading to escape. But even with that I know I won't be able to help but have a "screw 'em" stance pretty quick with the people who are choosing to not get vaccinated.
barbazoo 6y ago
Given that it seems that you can be transmitting the virus without developing symptoms, would it really be that much safer for an unvaccinated person?
- jghn 6y ago
  Depends on your vaccine. NEJM had a RWE study on Pfizer from Israel's data [1] that showed the 2nd shot had 92% efficacy against asymptomatic infection. Symptomatic infection was 94%. [1]: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765
  - barbazoo 6y ago
    That's fantastic, thank you.
idiotsecant 6y ago
You should care because your vaccine doesn't necessarily prevent you from catching a mutated variant . Given a long enough timeline and enough hosts such a strain will evolve, it's only a matter of time.
- mikem170 6y ago
  Is there any science supporting your statement?
  - idiotsecant 6y ago
    You want a source for what? That viruses are subject to evolutionary pressures and will mutate to better adapt to their environments like literally everything else as advantageous random mutations are found?
    - mikem170 6y ago
      You seem to be overstating the likelihood of covid-19 mutating into another strain, like the flu does. It's a coronavirus and those are known to be different in this regard. I haven't seen a source saying that we should expect immunity-evading strains. Do you have anything decent?
      - idiotsecant 6y ago
        They literally already exist!
        mikem170 6y ago
        >You should care because your vaccine doesn't necessarily prevent you from catching a mutated variant . Given a long enough timeline and enough hosts such a strain will evolve, it's only a matter of time. Yes, I know there are variants. But I've seen no science saying that it is likely or expected that the vaccine won't work against covid-19 variants. Have you? > They literally already exist! Ok, I googled and found this: "Variant or strain? Experts explain what's happened to the coronavirus" [0] From the article: "However, Soucy noted that all currently known variants of COVID-19 belong to the SARS-CoV-2 strain and have not mutated enough to either be classified as their own strain or be ineffective against current and prospective COVID-19 vaccines." Another quote from the article: "Infectious disease expert Dr. Lisa Barrett told CTV News Channel on Sunday that viruses often mutate, but some viruses do it more than others. She noted that while the genetic code of coronaviruses does typically change over time, she says the mutations aren’t normally a cause for concern." Here's another article, with references to multiple studies: "We now have the best evidence yet that everyone develops long-term coronavirus immunity after infection — and it's not just about antibodies" [1] From that article: "Many people who've never gotten COVID-19 seem to have memory T cells that can recognize the new coronavirus." ... "In this case, experts think these cross-reactive T cells likely come from previous exposure to other coronaviruses — those that cause common colds." That's the kind of stuff I find when I dig into this. What are you seeing? [0] https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/variant-or-strain-experts-explain-what-s-happened-to-the-coronavirus-1.5245923 https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/variant-or-strain-... [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/long-term-coronavirus-immunity-t-cells-2020-8?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/long-term-coronavirus-immuni...

brink 6y ago

Isn't herd immunity at 70%? This, along with those that have natural resistance to it should get us there, right?

barbazoo 6y ago
Does the distribution matter here? I wonder if there'll be pockets of unvaccinated people in areas of higher vaccination hesitancy and what that means for herd immunity.
- ajross 6y ago
  There always will be, but the nature of "herd" immunity means that such outbreaks will not be able to jump to the broader population, because on average outbreaks in a herd-immune community shrink and don't grow.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
It’s not clear. US health officials say it’s higher (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/heal...), although Fauci’s credibility in this interview is kinda compromised by the statement that he wasn’t previously telling people what he really thought.
superkuh 6y ago
That was estimated for the original Wuhan sequence and the early single mutation D614G variant. Current variants with the 501.Y change have almost twice the virulence (they infect people more easily). And the 501Y.V2 and V3 have the E484K mutation (sequenced first in South Africa and Brazil) that makes them escape immune responses to the original Wuman and D614G variants. This also applies to a lesser degree to L452R sequenced first in California, USA but it does not share the increased virulence of the 501Y variants of concern. Herd immunity might have been 70% in March 2020 but much more than that is required now. This is especially true as various ignorant populations have decided that no particular protectective behaviors are needed raising the R number even higher.

ajross 6y ago

Not yet, per this link we're at 39%. Maybe you're looking at data for total doses given? Lots of the vaccination in the US has been (IMHO, inappropriately) focused on completing the course, so while we might have had enough doses to put one in 60% of the population, we actually put two in most of those people. The UK did the opposite, where slightly more total vaccine led to only 13% of people being completely vaccinated but 49% having at least one dose. And clearly their outbreak curve looks much better. Though it's worth pointing out that the UK curve seems to be levelling off at an asymptote of about 50% vaccination, which is too low and broadly confirms the contention in the linked article. Get your shots, folks. https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countries-normalized&highlight=United%20States&show=highlight-only&y=both&scale=linear&data=vaccinePeople&data-source=owid&xaxis=right#countries-normalized https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countr...

naturalauction 6y ago
The UK “leveling off” is likely a result of vaccine availability, especially as the number of second doses are ramping up (they have decided to use a longer gap between the first and second dose). I believe 95% of over 50s are vaccinated and the program just opened up eligibility for non at-risk people aged 45-50 a few days ago. Now with potential fear around blood clots, future uptake is yet to be seen, I think it’s too early to say that vaccinations are leveling off.

vjeux 6y ago

38.5% has at least one shot (as the title of the article says), not 61%. 61% is the result of a survey.

fouc 6y ago
edit: misread article
- ac29 6y ago
  You arent reading the article. From the first paragraph: "Over 127 million adults—38.5 percent of the US population—have received at least one shot. Over 80 million adults—24 percent of the US population—are now fully vaccinated."